User talk:121.98.80.77
Monument of Honor revert We have a policy that disallows re-reverting a revert, GW:1RV. Please familiarize yourself with it. Also, in that case bowing was an adjective, and if you change one to a verb, then change all three, or leave all three alone, as I hinted in my edit summary. RoseOfKali 09:19, October 15, 2009 (UTC) :If that's true, then there should still be an 'a' before the bowing, regardless of whether it's a proper noun or not. "Of bowing noun" is incorrect. /sigh regardless, not Regardless. Looks bad to comment on grammar and mess up basic capitalisation. —''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' 121.98.80.77 ( ) . ::An indefinite article 'a' is needed in front of the other two, as they are species, however Palawa Joko requires a definite article 'the.' RoseOfKali 09:56, October 15, 2009 (UTC) :::AFAIK, you are correct there - usage of articles in clauses referencing other nouns has exceptions to it's rules, but far too late at night for me to recall them all- but there was *no* article at all in the original text. —''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' 121.98.80.77 ( ) 03:07, 15 October 2009. :::: Since this continued discussion is really about the HoM, shouldn't it be taking place on its talkpage? :::: IP: the reason that contributors should never revert a revert (policy or not) is that it leads to unproductive edit/counter-edit. Any revert deserves a summary/comment (as was used in this case). If a contributor disagrees vehemently with that action, then they can make the case on the talk page and wait to see whether folks agree, disagree, or have an alternative suggestion in mind. After consideration, a double-revert might be the best course of action; more likely, there will be some 3rd path. :::::I do apologise in that regard and claim semi-ignorance of the policy.—''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' 121.98.80.77 ( ) . :::: You seem to have some interesting ideas (Michiko the money machine) and some good instincts about consistency and grammar (a touchy subject, to be sure). I hope you decide to create an account and become a more regular and well-known contributor. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:17, October 15, 2009 (UTC) ::::: Thank you - might do that when I'm not half-asleep and half-trying to help an alliance-mate do those annoying sacnoth valley quests. —''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' 121.98.80.77 ( ) . ::::::We're just discussing grammar, not quite HoM content, so it doesn't really matter where the discussion is. Also, please do sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end, it will sign with your IP and a date/time stamp. You can look up GW:SIGN for more info on signatures. For when you do decide to register, feel free to ask me how to make a fancier custom sig. RoseOfKali 10:32, October 15, 2009 (UTC) ::::::: I repeat the half-asleep comment. :P 10:51, October 15, 2009 (UTC) (Reset indent) We might want to reference this discussion from a future edit summary of MoH or from its talk there. I agree that the 80.77's edit was an improvement in writing style (and grammatically correct), and hold with Rose that the change should be applied to the description of the other two bowing statues as well. On a moot issue, I would not write "the bowing P J", as PJ has bowed on more than one occasion, and unless one stands out so much that it is the "definitive" bow, it would just be "a". --◄mendel► 11:37, October 15, 2009 (UTC)